Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad K
Without a visiting team there would be no game. The visiting team provides value to the event but you want it to provide that value for free.
|
a few steps further back... 81 home, 81 away games. Also, for every game you play at a teams stadium, they must play at yours. fair playing field from that perspective whether you share all or none.
Seems reasonable on its own to me. competing business entities, remember.
they fly in and play a child's game for 3 hours then impregnate some women from a local bar... rough day's work.
relative to all the work that goes into to maintaining a stadium, human resources, marketing, etc etc, the sum of the visiting team's contributing effort is a grain of salt in comparison to the amount of work the home team does to put on 81 games/yr.
remember MLB is a legalized cartel or collusion. Teams are independent business from each other... how many business do you know that share profits with their direct competition?
in a very small market you are incentivizing some bad behaviour. in some contexts, you can make more by spending less and milking the sharing for a larget net yearly gain. so, it's inevitable that some owners do this... previous florida marlins owner is prime example. (i don't think this was the motivation, i think that guy was just a putz when it came to competing/owning a baseball team)